You’re being harsh? There’s nothing here to be offended about as far as I’m concerned. My use of the word “inversion” with respect to Christianity has little to do with religion as a concept and much more to do with litteral fact within the given context. Allow me to explain: Judaic religions are by definition inversions of the religious systems and belief-structures of elder times. In no negative or positive sense.

Your comments are perceptive in every way, but you’re sort of making a mute point since I simply don’t disagree with you. I don’t think I do anyway.

Human history at a social scientific level is, among other things, a series of revolts against past established orders – within religion as within politics etc. So it happens that (for the sake of our subject) older Sumerian faiths are sort of “up-side-down” as compared to the faiths of today – i.e. the entities praised as good before are today litterally held as “the devil”. Names are different, naturally, pluralistic states have become singular (and vice versa) but the underlying themes remain.

I hope I have at least clarified this. As for them “aliens” and so forth, I think it’s safe to say that only that which has been verified is worth believing in. The term itself is hampered by the perspective of those who coins it – wouldn’t you agree?

Imagine humanity leaving this planet a thousand years from now, how do they deal with the somewhat more developed lesser primates upon stopping by in a million years or so? I’d be pretty faced if a gorilla in a suit ran away screaming “impending doom!” upon seeing me walking down the street – I would also be rather numbed by historical lessons posed by such folk, and I think I would laugh myself to death at their half-blind half-guess theories regarding who I was.

But that’s just me. And I know I’m a pretty bad guy. Sorry for any disappointment I have caused you.

I think those are the relevant perspectives here, for whatever reasonings such as these are relevant at all – since the only interesting perspectives would be unknown ones. Essentially, the scope of those that simply “know better” beyond reproach or discussion.

“Our” perspective, if you will, regardless of our life-spans and the finer details of our existence, is all but too well known to us – anything superior to us (be it by age, technology, or even divinity for lack of better words) must be met in its own light for dealing.

Everything is relative, no? A demonstrating question to pose is whether existence is manufactured as a scientist would pet a herd of rats in a laboratory, or in the ways parents would nurture a group of children, or the manners by which life-forms usually Seem to be alone at the whims and chances of chaos-math and basic universal physics.

In my experience, one not seldom finds exactly what one is looking/wishing for in conducting investigations such as these. Which is why one so rarely hear of devout religious people “changing their minds”.

So you do not believe in “aliens”? Good for you. Neither do I. I find it pointless to name things for which one has little or no conceptual understanding. Hell, as I’ve made clear before, I’m having a hard time fingering a definition of my self – let alone you yourself. Still, for the sake of argument, with your accutely original qualities (for which the only verification to date is my own) let’s look at the possibilities here:

Would a singular mutation randomly grant an extreme minority of a given population such extreme qualities as the ability to live virtually forever?

Maybe. Why don’t you ask yourself. Experience is something you’ve got and experience counts a long way when it comes to wisdom.

So what seems to be more likely here?

A vastly more advanced race (that’s really all we’re talking about here, “aliens”, “gods”, “demons”, are just examples of rationalized words used to describe things for primates when “spelling everything out” would just be futile or even destructive to the ’cause of the explanation) gives evolution a little nudge and then lets time take its part in the process – or genetic mutations spawn a species big-headed enough to argue existence into serious questioning simply because “the real world” didn’t seem to offer enough stuff to be remotely interesting.

From Sumerian gateways and lengthy incantations using cannabis and self-starvation as boosters, to Christian angels with flaming swords and golden trumpets, I sometimes sit back and marvel at how incredibly bored humanity must be with herself on a cultural collective level.

I find my misanthropy warranted. We have dwelt on this before.

As for pretty much everything else you mention, I’m right with you though probably a bit more extreme. Religion is protection for slaves and petty masters – synonymous to the word stagnation and yet none the less crucial for keeping order in less than educated collectives.

And I do agree that Christianity’s notions are amongst the more insane ones. The very word “catholic” translates “universal” – I’d say they are destined to take water well over their heads (again, again, and again…)

Still, with the clarifications and ramblings above taken into account I sense nothing in your comments that doesn’t fall to my liking. You are after all the one individual on this forum who has both the authority and the alledged experience to separate the weed from the crops, in a matter of speaking.

Finally, whether your faith in me as a person is restored or not, everyone is cursed with their own opinions and ideas. I for one think the medium of our correspondance does much more to confuse things than the other way around – be it secure or not.

Security is not really the issue, by the way – the issue is mostly dealing with at least half-serious topics in manners that easily puts them on the same level as all the other mindless gibberish on this global network of ours.

Then again, you’re correct, the diffidence with respect to truth and verity amongst mortals certainly serves as our protection. As long as I don’t exist, I can say whatever the hell I want – and so can you.